9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (1) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itten down value of the car within the meaning of section 10(5)(b)? " The assessee is an individual and the controversy relates to the assessment year 1960-61 (previous year ending March 31, 1960). The assessee purchased a motor-car for Rs. 14,500 on March 7, 1951. The Income-tax Officer held that the car was not wholly used for the purposes of the assessee's business. He, therefore, restricted the depreciation allowance admissible under section 10(2)(vi) to half the total depreciation permissible under the rules. The assessee all long accepted the position that the motor-car was used only partly for the purpose of business. During the assessment year in question the assessee sold the car for Rs. 6,000. In the assessment order dated 14th M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he written down value means the ' actual cost ' less depreciation actual allowed to the asssess namely, 50% of the total depreciation admissible as liad down in section 10(5)(b) of the Act. He has however contented that in the view of section 10(3) of the Act, 50% of the original cost should be taken as the cost of the motor-car to the assessee and the department actually allowed to the asssessee in all these years should be deducted from written down value thus arrived at should be deducted from the half of the sale price and that would give the correct profit under section 10(2)(vii), second proviso. It has been contended that as the Income-tax Officer virtually has followed this method, there was nothing wrong and the Appellate Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he division of the asset as being used for business and non-business purposes that is contemplated by the section but only apportionment of the depreciation allowance as between the use of it for business purposes and its use for non-business purposes. However, that need not detain us any longer as we are not convinced that such a proposition can be sustained either on the language of any section or on authority." The argument of the revenue before the Tribunal was as set out herein before and it was conceded that the depreciation actually allowed had to be taken into account in arriving at the written down value. The Tribunal does not, however, appear to have referred the question raised by the revenue to this court. The question referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the revenue, relied on section 10(3) which provides that where any plant or machinery is not wholly used for the purpose of the business, the allowance shall be restricted to the fair proportional part which would be allowable if such machinery, plant, etc., was wholly so used, That provision appears to be directed towards the calculation of depreciation that can be allowed in case of machinery or plant not wholly used for the purpose of the business and does not modify the meaning of the written down value in section 10(5)(b). Even if I were to answer the question on the basis of the contention raised before the Tribunal, my answer would be against the revenue. Under section 10(2)(vii) if the sale proceeds exceed the written down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
